One Of The Rust Linux Kernel Maintainers Steps Down - Cites "Nontechnical Nonsense"
One Of The Rust Linux Kernel Maintainers Steps Down - Cites "Nontechnical Nonsense"
Wedson Almeida Filho is a Microsoft engineer who has been prolific in his contributions to the Rust for the Linux kernel code over the past several years. Wedson has worked on many Rust Linux kernel features and even did a experimental EXT2 file-system driver port to Rust. But he's had enough and is now stepping away from the Rust for Linux efforts.
From Wedon's post on the kernel mailing list:
I am retiring from the project. After almost 4 years, I find myself lacking the energy and enthusiasm I once had to respond to some of the nontechnical nonsense, so it's best to leave it up to those who still have it in them.
...
I truly believe the future of kernels is with memory-safe languages. I am no visionary but if Linux doesn't internalize this, I'm afraid some other kernel will do to it what it did to Unix.
Lastly, I'll leave a small, 3min 30s, sample for context here: https://youtu.be/WiPp9YEBV0Q?t=1529 -- and to reiterate, no one is trying force anyone else to learn Rust nor prevent refactorings of C code."
You're viewing part of a thread.
Do you believe C isn't crap when it comes to security? Please explain why and I'll happily debate you.
/fw hacker, reverse engineer
That's not how it works. You said:
C is crap for anything where security matters.
Argue for your point.
Lots of categories which Rust doesn't prevent, and in the kernel you'll end up with a lot of
unsafeRust, so it can't guarantee memory-safety in all cases.The biggest items on the graph are all out of bounds accesses, use-after-free and overflows. It is undeniable that memory safe languages help reducing vulnerabilities, we know for decades that memory corruption vulnerabilities are both the most common and the most severe in programs written in memory-unsafe languages.
Unsafe rust is also not turning off every safety feature, and it's much better to have clear highlighted and isolated parts of code that are unsafe, which can be more easily reviewed and tested, compared to everything suffering from those problems.
I don't think there is debate here, rewriting is a huge effort, but the fact that using C is prone to memory corruption vulnerabilities and memory-safe languages are better from that regard is a fact.
Link dropping is also not arguing.
Citing scientific research is. Now, please post your gut feeling in response.
My gut feeling is you didn't hook a programmer but a debate pervert (maybe shouldn't have dropped the D word lol). Some people hear that word and turn they minds off cuz debates are simply a game for them to win. I'd just let this one swim brother
You continue to be antagonistic. I don't think I want to waste my time here.